SETI is really cool but it is really looking for a needle in the ocean.

Yes, you're right, but to extend the analogy: It's a needle that we have increasingly good reasons to think is actually there. The more we learn about the universe, the more it appears that the Principle of Mediocrity is the correct view. Not only that, but out of the entire ocean, the amount that we've been able to examine to any reasonable degree doesn't even amount to one teaspoon of water.

I don't know what you are driving at. I simply am saying that SETI as cool as it is, is not likely to find anything because like the needle analogy knowing something is there does not mean we could ever feasibly find it. We absolutely know that needles are on the ocean floor but randomly finding one the way we poke around the heavens is unlikely.

you rightly cite the fact we have searched a tiny fraction of the ocean, but our ability to search the heavens is astronomically more difficult.

we not only have to look at the right place for the broadcast but also the right time. Did the civilization use radio 1,000,000 years ago before going low power digital? Those signals may have long since passed earth. Did they use directional antennas for communications and never aim them in our direction leaving us on the side lobes of the antenna? Knowing the needle existed does not mean we will find it before it dissolves into rust and is carried off with the currents of time

I don't know what you are driving at. I simply am saying that SETI as cool as it is, is not likely to find anything because like the needle analogy knowing something is there does not mean we could ever feasibly find it. We absolutely know that needles are on the ocean floor but randomly finding one the way we poke around the heavens is unlikely.

I think I may have misunderstood you, then. What I was driving at is that life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. Every time we make a new discovery about the universe, that discovery seems to indicate an increase in that likelihood. Finding it, though, as you say, is an entirely different matter, and unless it exists elsewhere in our own solar system, we almost certainly won't find it for the foreseeable future. (I was about to say "for several centuries", but I'm hesitant to give a speed limit to the development of technology.)

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

There's no need for that. If there ever is any news of life being found on another planet, I can guaran-darn-tee you that we won't need you to tell us about it. It will arguably be the most important discovery the human race has ever made, with the possible exception of how to make fire.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

There's no need for that. If there ever is any news of life being found on another planet, I can guaran-darn-tee you that we won't need you to tell us about it. It will arguably be the most important discovery the human race has ever made, with the possible exception of how to make fire.

We do need more fishing worms. I look forward to having another source.

But here's the thing. Why would it have any importance? So what? Chemistry produces life, there are chemicals in other places, what would be the big deal? It would be like discovering that the opposite side of the sum produces heat, just like this side does.Hey, the moon is dusty on both sides! Big splattering deal.

There is no proof that there is life anywhere outside the confines of earths ecosystem, therefore there is none because there is no proof.

There is no evidence that I know of that there is life on other planets. True. But to say "there probably is or has been life somewhere else in the univere" is not a leap of faith and is qualitatively different than saying "there is no biblegod".

We observe life here, on earth. We know life is a possibility. We know there are somthing like a hundred billion galaxies, each with a hundred billion stars. So there is great opportunity for the right conditions for life to exist. It is an expression of known probabilities.

None of this is true of gods. We do not observe supernatural entities. We do not know they are possible. We have not observed places were supernatural people would live. We do not have any good reason to suspect their existence in the first place.[1] Add to that the fact that things claimed to have been done by yhwh in the bible are known to have not happened.

So it is not an expression of known probabilities. These two ideas are not two sides of the same coin.

So the theists gambit of trying to paint us with the same brush as them does not work. It's a stupid gambit in the first place. Whether our beliefs are equally stupid is not the point and do not make your beliefs any more true. It is a red herring.

Well there is no way you can say that there is not God if you use that type of logic.

As I said, they are qualitatively different claims. And most of us don't go that far out on the limb. Most of us say specific gods do not exist and leave open the possibility that some god may exist, depending on the specifics.

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

We do need more fishing worms. I look forward to having another source.

But here's the thing. Why would it have any importance? So what? Chemistry produces life, there are chemicals in other places, what would be the big deal? It would be like discovering that the opposite side of the sum produces heat, just like this side does.Hey, the moon is dusty on both sides! Big splattering deal.

A good question, SW. Assuming we find even single-celled life off-Earth and are able (which would most likely mean it's in our solar system) to learn about its makeup, here's my answer. I doubt it will satisfy you, but to educate myself and any interested onlookers...

Primarily, its importance would be as a comparison to Terrestrial life. Does it use DNA? If it does, then that strongly implies a common origin. Even if it uses a similar water-carbon, left-handed sugar chemistry, there could be subtle differences (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/spectrum_plants.html). Such things have been theorized, but in my example, human biologists would have actual samples to examine.

What can be deduced about its evolutionary history? Can we find its molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock) and discover how old it is compared to Earth life? Fossils? What is its average rate of evolutionary change?

Such comparisons would be extremely valuable in giving insight into how our biochemistry works. Does alien life do certain things more or less efficiently? This could lead to an explosion of new applications in medicine similar to the new techniques for treating cancer and genetic diseases, to name just one possibility.

Lastly, I would also expect theists of all kinds to be interested in such a discovery. Just as most many god-believers have no problem accepting the fact of evolution, I think they would accept the existence of alien life as compatible with their religious views. There would likely would be a vocal minority of doubters and detractors as well.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 02:18:30 PM by wright »

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

The stories of Zeus, Aries and Odin are just that. Stories. The same can be said about a huge chunk of the Old Testament of the bible. Most of the books contained are stories about God. I am not so certain about the New Testament. Yes the Gospels are stories about a man named Jesus, or to be more accurate, the name actually translates to Joshua, but these stories have a good chance of having a basis in fact just like our ancient history books do. The man was a great teacher of what is universally moral, even if some others have taught the some of the same things previously. Wisdom is universal. Even of HE may not have been the actual son of God, he still deserves respect and was probably the greatest teacher of all time.

As far as "Nessy" goes, who is to say that we have discovered all of the lifeforms on earth. The same could be said about Bigfoot, although I don't know how we could miss something so large, considering the technology of today. But... new species are being discovered quite often. And since life begets life... it is logical to assume that all life spawned from the original source of life.

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

<snip>

A long dodge that answered nothing. Re-read the questions. I'll put them in big, bold letters for you.

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

<snip>

A long dodge that answered nothing. Re-read the questions. I'll put them in big, bold letters for you.

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence?

I really didn't intend to dodge that, but Screwtape did add more to that question and I answered it as he asked. I am not sure if I can answer that adequately.

"What is actual evidence of absence?" If it's not there then it does not exist. If it is there, then it does exist. It does not matter of we know of it's existence or not. I suppose that is the only answer I can give concerning that particular question.

As far as "Nessy" goes, who is to say that we have discovered all of the lifeforms on earth.

Nobody says that. In fact, quite the contrary, biologists readily acknowledge that there are, in all likelihood, literally millions of species that we haven't discovered yet. However, that does not mean that it is reasonable to think that Nessie may exist. There are very good reasons to assume that it doesn't, the main one being that Loch Ness has a total water volume of less than two cubic miles, which is far too small to provide sufficient food to support a life form as large as Nessie is purported to be.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

"What is actual evidence of absence?" If it's not there then it does not exist. If it is there, then it does exist. It does not matter of we know of it's existence or not. I suppose that is the only answer I can give concerning that particular question.

Your "answer" is nothing of the sort. Try again.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

As far as "Nessy" goes, who is to say that we have discovered all of the lifeforms on earth.

Nobody says that. In fact, quite the contrary, biologists readily acknowledge that there are, in all likelihood, literally millions of species that we haven't discovered yet. However, that does not mean that it is reasonable to think that Nessie may exist. There are very good reasons to assume that it doesn't, the main one being that Loch Ness has a total water volume of less than two cubic miles, which is far too small to provide sufficient food to support a life form as large as Nessie is purported to be.

I did imply that when I mentioned how I don't know how we could miss something so large. I forgot to mention the confined space that 'Nessy" would live in.

"What is actual evidence of absence?" If it's not there then it does not exist. If it is there, then it does exist. It does not matter of we know of it's existence or not. I suppose that is the only answer I can give concerning that particular question.

Your "answer" is nothing of the sort. Try again.

I can only provide an example. If something was there before and now it isn't, that would be evidence of absence. If I were to suddenly go missing, that would be evidence of absence. Something would have had to been present in the past in order for it to be absent now.

I can only provide an example. If something was there before and now it isn't, that would be evidence of absence. If I were to suddenly go missing, that would be evidence of absence. Something would have had to been present in the past in order for it to be absent now.

That is a good answer. I'll leave it up to screwtape to decide whether or not it answers the question, since I'm not sure if he was looking for something like that, or if by "evidence of absence" he meant "evidence of non-existence". By the way, you forgot the other one. Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent?

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I did imply that when I mentioned how I don't know how we could miss something so large. I forgot to mention the confined space that 'Nessy" would live in.

Loch Ness is interesting. I'm not talking about the lake itself, but rather its effect is has on humans, once the rumor or a monster arose. When I was there, with three others, in the early 70's, every little wave, every little whitecap felt, made me feel, if only for second until I could tell it was nothing, that maybe there was a Loch Ness monster. My stomach reacted the same way it would if Nessie were real. It was an interesting psychological experience. All four of us, each of whom poo-pooed the idea of the critter being real, reacted the same way, over and over again. We laughed about it for years afterward.

In other words, the idea was in our heads, and it didn't take much for us to think that maybe, just maybe, that little anomaly on the lake was indeed an ancient dinosaur rising to the surface for someone to discover.

I'm guessing the idea of a god affects some people the same way.

It is not always easy to separate fiction from fact. Now that I'm much older, I am quite happy that I can tell the difference. I must admit, though, I enjoyed the fantasy when I was 20.

And by the way, the lake is actually pretty big. Over 20 square miles. So it depends on ones definition of "confined". (It is big enough and deep and cold enough that most drowning victims bodies are never recovered. But as per our friend SkyWriting, that still beats the crap out of being alive.)

That is a good answer. I'll leave it up to screwtape to decide whether or not it answers the question, since I'm not sure if he was looking for something like that, or if by "evidence of absence" he meant "evidence of non-existence". By the way, you forgot the other one. Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent?

That would always be permissible, unless the imagined entity actually exists in some form.

Something would have had to been present in the past in order for it to be absent now.

It logically follows from this that anything that was not present in the past, cannot be absent now. In other words, if it was absent in the past (ie. not present), then it must be present now.

Did you mean to say something different?

No. If something was never there there would not be any evidence of absence. Something has to be removed in order to have evidence of absence.

I think there is something of a subtle distinction that needs to be made at this time. What you're interpretting as 'evidence of absence' seems something closer to 'evidence of past manifestation' or 'evidence of what once was but may no longer be'.

It's a bit different than 'evidence that something doesn't exist'. Is this distinction valid and/or applicable to the current conversations?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

^^ Yes, that's a relevant distinction, imo. "What is evidence that something has ceased to exist" is not what is being asked. "What is evidence that something does not exist at all?" is what is being asked.

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

The stories of Zeus, Aries and Odin are just that. Stories. The same can be said about a huge chunk of the Old Testament of the bible. Most of the books contained are stories about God.

So if there are stories about Zeus, and stories about Yahweh, what is it that makes one's existence more plausible than the other?

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

The stories of Zeus, Aries and Odin are just that. Stories. The same can be said about a huge chunk of the Old Testament of the bible. Most of the books contained are stories about God.

So if there are stories about Zeus, and stories about Yahweh, what is it that makes one's existence more plausible than the other?

There are stories about Christopher Columbus as well. What makes his previous existence plausible?

Under what circumstances would you say it is permissible to say some imagined entity was non-existent? What is actual evidence of absence? Or would you like to leave open the door for the possibility of Zeus? Ares? Odin? How about the Loch Ness Monster?

The stories of Zeus, Aries and Odin are just that. Stories.

You've already heard this, but your post does not answer my question. Take another look at it.

You say those stories are just stories, without proving they are. But I say that about the bible, and whoa Nelly, I'm breaking some kind of law of logic. Take another look at the point I'm making. Let me help...

The same can be said about a huge chunk of the Old Testament of the bible. Most of the books contained are stories about God.

1. How do you know which chunk is just a story and which isn't?2. No, most of the OT is not about yhwh. Most of the OT is a culture dump of the hebrew people in roughly the iron age. It includes their rituals and their national myths, which appears as history, but is not. George Washington probably did not chop down a cherry tree.

but these stories have a good chance of having a basis in fact just like our ancient history books do.

A good chance? What is the probability? Show your work. And what does that mean? If jesus H was just a wandering hebrew loud-mouth, and not the son of god, then xianity is complete bullshit. That is the whole core of xianity.

Does that mean the Iliad also has a good chance of having a basis in fact? How about the epic of Gilgamesh? The Hindu Vedas?

Oh really? What is universally moral? What about xianity is universally moral? People get to go unpunished for their crimes? That someone else has the power to forgive others for their transgressions against you? That someone else can take your punishment? I don't find any of that moral.

he still deserves respect and was probably the greatest teacher of all time.

I disagree. He did nothing in terms of delivering useful practices. The whole power of jesus H is in the idea that he was supposedly god. If he wasn't, then he was irrelevant. The Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gauthama, on the other hand developed a system of ethical principles and meditation techniques that work regardless of any supernatural claims attachted to buddha. In other words, even if The Buddha is just a fiction, it does not matter, because what he said works.

There are stories about Christopher Columbus as well. What makes his previous existence plausible?

There is a lot we do not know about CC, but some evidence does exist. Documents that correlate to other documents. Portraits. Accounting logs, his own writings. Not just narratives.[1] The same cannot be said for yhwh or Zeus.

You are trying to equivocate again. Stop doing that. It does not make your point. It is a social convention, not a law of rationality. And even if you were correct, that we only have stories about Columbus and they are equally reliable about the OT stories about yhwh, you cannot be excused for having irrational beliefs just because other people have other irrational beliefs. You cannot do that anymore than you can be excused for thinking 1+1=3 just because someone else thinks 2+2=5.

Presumably, we agree Zeus never existed, yes? How do we establish that? Now, correlate Zeus and yhwh. Do we leave the door open for the possibility of Zeus?

No. People do not have any spiritual experiences involving Zeus, nor are there any prophets of Zeus. Yhwh is roughly translated as "he who creates" or "that which creates" The universe is here. It was wither created by God or it was not. (Being an agnostic theist I do accept both possibilities)

Quote

1. How do you know which chunk is just a story and which isn't?2. No, most of the OT is not about yhwh. Most of the OT is a culture dump of the hebrew people in roughly the iron age. It includes their rituals and their national myths, which appears as history, but is not. George Washington probably did not chop down a cherry tree.

Agreed. it is a culture dump.

Quote

A good chance? What is the probability? Show your work. And what does that mean? If jesus H was just a wandering hebrew loud-mouth, and not the son of god, then xianity is complete bullshit. That is the whole core of xianity.

I fully accept that as a possibility. I personally don't believe so but that is my choice to make. I fully accept that I believe, or have the opinion that Jesus (Joshua) was a true speaker for God. Possibly the most important one.

Quote

Oh really? What is universally moral? What about xianity is universally moral? People get to go unpunished for their crimes? That someone else has the power to forgive others for their transgressions against you? That someone else can take your punishment? I don't find any of that moral.

Being loving, forgiving and non-judgmental is universally moral. Treating others with the same respect that you would like to be treated with is universally moral, even if Confucuis taught it previously. If Jesus was telling the truth, people do NOT go unpunished for their crimes. They do not receive eternal life. And if Jesus was God and He chose to die so that my sins could be forgiven, I am very grateful and I do respect it. Very moral of Him since God started this ball rolling in the first place.

Quote

I disagree. He did nothing in terms of delivering useful practices. The whole power of jesus H is in the idea that he was supposedly god. If he wasn't, then he was irrelevant. The Buddha, Prince Siddhartha Gauthama, on the other hand developed a system of ethical principles and meditation techniques that work regardless of any supernatural claims attachted to buddha. In other words, even if The Buddha is just a fiction, it does not matter, because what he said works.

Teaching people to forgive others, not to seek revenge and to be merciful are not useful practices? So I should just go and burn the houses down of the people who caused me harm in my life? So if someone kills one of my loved ones I should kill them or make them suffer? IF someone were to rape my nieces I should torture the rapists for doing do?

Quote

So you do want to leave the door open for the loch ness monster. Okay. We should also leave it open for mermaids, because, hey, you never know. And leprechans, because who's to say?

No. There are ways to prove if "Nessy" is real or not. Nobody wants to waste the money and resources doing so. Too much risk of it being a falsehood.

No. People do not have any spiritual experiences involving Zeus, nor are there any prophets of Zeus. Yhwh is roughly translated as "he who creates" or "that which creates" The universe is here. It was wither created by God or it was not. (Being an agnostic theist I do accept both possibilities)

People do not have any spiritual experiences involving Yhwh either. They claim they do. Just like the people in the past that claimed to have had spiritual experiences with Zeus or any number of deities you do not subscribe to. If you have any other evidence to suggest that the people claiming to have spiritual experiences (kinda squishy on the definition of 'spiritual' by-the-by), by all means trot it out.

While you accept the possibilities that a creator god made the universe or no such creator god created the universe, you seem to think it more probable that a creator god did do it? If so, why?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."